POUŽÍVÁNÍ MATEŘSKÉHO A CÍLOVÉHO JAZYKA UČITELEM V HODINÁCH ANGLIČTINY NA 2. STUPNI ZŠTEACHER’S USE OF MOTHER TONGUE AND TARGET LANGUAGE IN LOWER SECONDARY ENGLISH CLASSES

(1)

Technická univerzita v Liberci

FAKULTA PŘÍRODOVĚDNĚ-HUMANITNÍ A PEDAGOGICKÁ

Katedra: Anglického jazyka

Studijní program: Specializace v pedagogice

Studijní obor: Anglický jazyk – Španělský jazyk

POUŽÍVÁNÍ MATEŘSKÉHO A CÍLOVÉHO JAZYKA UČITELEM V HODINÁCH

ANGLIČTINY NA 2. STUPNI ZŠ

TEACHER’S USE OF MOTHER TONGUE AND TARGET LANGUAGE IN LOWER

SECONDARY ENGLISH CLASSES

Bakalářská práce: 12–FP–KAJ–035

Autor: Podpis:

Lucie ŠKOPOVÁ

Vedoucí práce: Mgr. František Tůma Konzultant: -

Počet

stran grafů obrázků tabulek pramenů příloh

65 10 - 5 18 4

(2)

(3)

(4)

Čestné prohlášení

Název práce: Používání mateřského a cílového jazyka učitelem v hodinách angličtiny na 2. stupni ZŠ

Jméno a příjmení

autora: Lucie Škopová

Osobní číslo: P09000441

Byl/a jsem seznámen/a s tím, že na mou bakalářskou práci se plně vztahuje zákon č.

121/2000 Sb. o právu autorském, právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů (autorský zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů, zejména § 60 – školní dílo.

Prohlašuji, že má bakalářská práce je ve smyslu autorského zákona výhradně mým autorským dílem.

Beru na vědomí, že Technická univerzita v Liberci (TUL) nezasahuje do mých autorských práv užitím mé bakalářské práce pro vnitřní potřebu TUL.

Užiji-li bakalářskou práci nebo poskytnu-li licenci k jejímu využití, jsem si vědom povinnosti informovat o této skutečnosti TUL; v tomto případě má TUL právo ode mne požadovat úhradu nákladů, které vynaložila na vytvoření díla, až do jejich skutečné výše.

Bakalářskou práci jsem vypracoval/a samostatně s použitím uvedené literatury a na základě konzultací s vedoucím bakalářské práce a konzultantem.

Prohlašuji, že jsem do informačního systému STAG vložil/a elektronickou verzi mé bakalářské práce, která je identická s tištěnou verzí předkládanou k obhajobě a uvedl/a jsem všechny systémem požadované informace pravdivě.

V Liberci dne: 26. 04. 2012

Lucie Škopová

(5)

Poděkování

Tímto bych chtěla velmi poděkovat Mgr. Františku Tůmovi za cenné rady, připomínky a odborné vedení mé bakalářské práce. Také děkuji všem učitelům a žákům, kteří se zúčastnili mého výkumu, za jejich ochotnou spolupráci při jeho realizaci.

Poděkování patří i všem mým blízkým, kteří mě celou dobu studia i při tvorbě této práce velmi podporovali.

26. 04. 2012 __________________________

Lucie Škopová

(6)

Abstract

The aim of this Bachelor’s thesis is to define the main principles for the use of mother tongue and target language in EFL classes and to ascertain the proportion of teacher’s use of L1 and L2 in selected lower secondary English classes in the Liberec region. First, theoretical background is introduced and situations in which the teacher speaks are determined. Second, the research concerned with this topic and performed in the Czech Republic is briefly reviewed. Next, the research procedure of this thesis is described and data collected analysed. The research project was conducted in three different sixth form classes at lower secondary schools where six lessons in total were observed and 1912 utterances of three different teachers were analysed. Finally, the findings are presented and discussed. It was confirmed that English is the main language in the class. On the other hand the empirical results diverged from the theoretical background in using L1 and L2 in some specific situations in which the teacher speaks.

Key words: mother tongue, target language, EFL classes, classroom English

Abstract

Cílem této bakalářské práce je vymezit hlavní principy pro používání mateřského a cílového jazyka v hodinách angličtiny a zjistit proporci používání těchto dvou jazyků vybranými učiteli ve třídách druhého stupně základních škol v Libereckém kraji. Nejdříve jsou představena teoretická východiska a jsou stanoveny situace, ve kterých učitel mluví.

Poté je stručně zmíněn výzkum, který byl realizován v České republice a zabýval se tímto tématem. Dále je popsán samotný výzkum této práce a nashromážděné údaje jsou analyzovány. Výzkumný projekt byl uskutečněn ve třech různých třídách šestého ročníku základních škol, kde bylo celkově pozorováno šest hodin a celkem 1912 promluv tří různých učitelů bylo analyzováno. Na závěr jsou výsledky výzkumu představeny a

(7)

výsledky se lišily od teoretického základu v otázce používání mateřského a cílového jazyka v některých specifických případech, kdy učitel mluví.

Klíčová slova: mateřský jazyk, cílový jazyk, hodiny angličtiny, angličtina ve třídě

(8)

1 Introduction

Teaching foreign languages is complex. It includes various aspects such as language learners, technology, teacher, verbal communication etc. This thesis attempts to deal with the dilemma of the language that should be used by teachers in lower secondary English lessons.

In the 20th century there were many different approaches to teaching a language (Celce-Murcia 1991, 5). However, two main trends that are important for this thesis in terms of language used in teaching a language are the Direct Approach and Grammar-Translation Approach, which are explained further in the thesis.

Celce-Murcia (1991) refers to the dynamic development in the field of teaching foreign languages, where one of the most discussed topics has been the use of L1 and L2 in foreign language classes.

The field of teaching foreign languages has experienced dynamic development as was mentioned above. One of the important changes in the Czech educational system occurred a few years ago. In 2004 the state approved Framework Education Programme for Basic Education which states that students should be able to understand simple and clearly pronounced speech and conversation when he or she leaves lower secondary school (Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání 2010, 27). With more responsibility for learning outcomes, many teachers might have a problem deciding which approach to use or how to combine elements of different methods for the most effective learning; an integral part of which involves deciding on the use of L1 and L2. In literature we can find different opinions on this topic.

The first part of this Bachelor’s thesis summarizes and specifies the main principles for using the mother tongue and the target language in English classes, based on academic

(11)

literature. The second part is practical, its goal being to determine the real proportion of teacher’s use of mother tongue and target language in selected lower secondary English classes in the Liberec region. This part, apart from a description of research tools, presents the results obtained through the observation of six EFL classes and a discussion of results.

For the purposes of this thesis, mother tongue (or L1) is understood as the language that learners speak at home, whereas the target language (or L2) is the foreign language that learners learn at school. More specifically, in the context of the Czech Republic and in accord with the aims of this thesis, L1 refers to Czech and L2 to English – see Stern (1983, 9–22) for a discussion related to the distinction between L1/L2 and foreign/second language.

(12)

2 Theoretical part

This part of the thesis presents the theoretical background for the research. First, the Direct Approach and Grammar-Translation Approach are described in terms of their use of L1 and L2 by teachers in classes. Next, situations in which the teacher speaks are defined in order to identify the reason for using the mother tongue or the target language and for a clearer analysis of the proportion of their use in the research. The theoretical findings about the role of L1 and L2 in the classroom are explored based on literature, while the use of mother tongue and the target language is also discussed for each determined situation.

2.1 Direct Approach and Grammar-Translation Approach

As was previously mentioned, there are many different approaches to teaching foreign languages. Some of them are focused on using a language, some on analysing it and some approaches combine these two types. In this thesis two main approaches that are important in terms of language used in foreign language classes are the Direct Approach and Grammar-Translation Approach.

2.1.1 Grammar-Translation Approach

The main focus of the Grammar-Translation Approach is the second language grammar. “The first language is maintained as the reference system in the acquisition of the second language” (Stern 1983, 455). L1 plays a significant role and is used often by teachers, usually during explaining. Translating from L1 to L2 and vice versa is widely practised and it forms an essential part of this approach. As Stern points out,

“Grammar-Translation lays little or no emphasis on the speaking of the second language or listening to second language speech” (1983, 454).

(13)

Fundamentally, the Grammar-Translation Approach is more oriented on learning about the language than on practising the use of the language itself. Oral production or interaction in the second language is usually not covered in classes.

And as Celce-Murcia mentions, in this approach “the teacher does not have to be able to speak the target language” (1991, 6).

2.1.2 Direct Approach

The Direct Approach is in all practicality the opposite of the Grammar-Translation Approach. It is focused on the target language and “no use of mother tongue is permitted”

(Celce-Murcia 1991, 6). It focuses on everyday language and lessons are conversation based where the target language plays an important role. Speaking and understanding are the most relevant factors. Contrary to the Grammar-Translation Approach the teacher needs to speak the target language proficiently (Celce-Murcia 1991, 6).

Fundamentally, the Direct Approach usually allows only the use of the target language and not the mother tongue. Consequently the whole class is planned accordingly and teachers avoid translation and other techniques that lead to the use of L1.

2.1.3 L1 and L2 in Grammar-Translation Approach and Direct Approach

None of these two approaches is ideal and they both seem to take extremes in L2 acquisition. The Direct Approach “constitutes a radical attempt to exclude L1 in L2 learning” (Stern 1983, 460) while in the Grammar-Translation Approach “there is a little use of the target language” (Celce-Murcia 1991, 6) and L1 is used in many situations.

However, they both include beneficial ideas and effective techniques. Teachers should critically evaluate the Grammar-Translation and Direct Approaches and choose effective components and combine them.

(14)

2.2 Situations in which the teacher speaks

According to Harmer (2001, 64–67) one of the prime role of a teacher is being a teaching aid himself. He is a very important source of the target language and plays a significant role in language acquisition. This thesis concentrates on teacher talk and his use of mother tongue and target language. There are many different situations during the lesson in which the teacher speaks. Based on the literature studied (Betáková 2006; Harmer 2001; Hughes and Moate 2007; Slattery and Willis 2001; Willis 1992), these situations can be divided into groups that are analysed below. However, different authors divide teacher talking activities and situations into divergent groups. Some of them are more or less similar but others can vary. In order to streamline the comparison of these activities for research purposes, they are placed into seven basic and one extra category.

2.2.1 Beginning of the lesson

The first group of situations that require teacher talk is realized before the actual teaching. There are both social and organizational constructions. First of all when the teacher enters the classroom, he greets students and possibly introduces himself.

He also might tell them to stand up or sit down. Another common part of the beginning of the lesson is checking attendance to see who is present. After that the lesson itself can start. The teacher also might introduce the main topic of the lesson.

To exemplify, the first set of situations in which the teacher speaks consists of entering the classroom (“Let’s go in.”, “Come on and sit down.”), everyday greetings (“Good morning, everybody.”, “How are you all today?”), meeting a new class (“Let me introduce myself.”, “It’s nice to meet you all.”), taking the register (“Let’s see if everyone’s here.”, “Who’s absent?”), dealing with lateness (“You’re late.”, “That’s all right.”)

(15)

and getting down to work (“It’s time to start.”, “Is everybody ready to start?”) (Hughes and Moate 2007, 2–6).

2.2.2 Organising

The second group of situations is Organising. In literature this wide category is sometimes divided into further subgroups. It is very important to pay attention to this part because without it the lesson could fall into chaos. According to Betáková (2006, 44–58) this category is called ‘Class management’ and it is divided into five groups: requests (“Can you come here, please?”), organising the class (“Come here and make a row.”), commands (“Open your books.”), pair-work and group-work (“Make a pair.”), distributing and collecting materials (“Give me your exercise books.”, “Has everyone got a copy?”).

The teacher also has to maintain discipline as a part of organising. Betáková (2006, 60–70) introduces discipline as a separate group where she includes maintaining discipline (“Stop talking!”, “Turn back.”), suggesting (“What about a new song?”, “Let’s sing a song.”) and giving permission (“Sure.”, “No problem.”).

2.2.3 Presentation and practice

The third group is called Presentation and practice. Within this category Betáková includes presentation (“Here is the rule.”, “Note that...”), introducing a new activity (“Now we will do exercise 4.”, “Now we are going to practise the present perfect.”) and giving instructions (“Read exercise 4.”, “Say it in English.”) (2006, 72–84). During presenting and practising a new language, teacher also gives examples and needs to introduce different stages. Hughes and Moates call this ‘Sequencing activities’ (“First, have a look at the text.”) (2007, 7).

(16)

2.2.4 Imparting and seeking information

The fourth group of situations is also based on Betáková’s categorization and it is Imparting and seeking information (2006, 160–174). This category includes asking questions (“What is the date today?”, “How did you like it?”) and also answering them (“It’s above zero.”), asking pupils personal questions (“Do you play chess?”, “Are you tired?”), giving information to students and checking understanding (“Do you understand?”, “Translate it, please.”). Understanding needs to be checked by teachers. It is important to see if students understand what they are supposed to do or if the new language is clear. Checking understanding also incorporates asking concept-check questions.

2.2.5 Giving feedback

The next group of situations in which the teacher speaks can be called Giving feedback. “Feedback encompasses not only correcting students, but also offering them an assessment of how well they have done, whether during a drill or after a longer language production exercise” (Harmer 2001, 99). Betáková calls this group ‘Giving feedback and correcting’ (“This is not the right answer.”, “Very good.”) (2006, 123–126).

2.2.6 Ending the lesson

The conclusion of the lesson involves different aspects. Firstly, the teacher needs to end the teaching sequence. Then he will most likely set homework and briefly review the lesson. Afterwards he may need to organise classroom by tidying up. At the end of the lesson he makes announcements and says goodbye to students.

The Ending the lesson phase usually consists of ending a teaching sequence (“Last few questions.”), setting homework (“At home I want you to finish this piece of work.”), a review of the lesson (“So today we have practised...”), tidying up (“Will you put everything back in its right place, please?”) and announcements (“I have something to tell

(17)

you before you go.”) (Willis 1992, 77–79). Saying goodbye (“Goodbye, everyone.”, “Have a nice weekend.”) also falls into this category as stated by Hughes and Moate (2007, 11).

Willis also mentions collecting things at the end of the lesson, but this in practicality is distributing and collecting materials, which is included in the category Organising.

2.2.7 Social rituals

This group refers to the language used every day. Betáková calls this section Social rituals and includes apologizing and forgiving (“Sorry, I am late.”, “Never mind.”), thanking (“You are very kind.”) and congratulating (“Happy Birthday.”, “Good luck.”) (2006, 20–26). She also covers greetings and introductions, even though these are part of the Beginning of the lesson according to Hughes and Moate.

2.2.8 Others

This category covers situations that cannot be put into any previous group.

During the lesson there might appear situations which are not taken into consideration in the categories analysed above.

2.3 L1 or L2?

In academic literature there can be found different opinions on the appropriateness of the teacher’s use of L1 and L2 in foreign language classes. But the important question stated by Atkinson (1993, 2) is: “Should English be spoken all the time by all teachers of English in all classes?”. According to him there is no right balance between L1 and L2, an ideal proportion of the use of English and mother tongue does not exist and it depends on many factors; the students’ previous experience, their level, the stage of the course and the stage of the lesson (Atkinson 1993, 14).

(18)

Many authors promote the use of majority L2 (e.g. Hughes and Moate 2007, Willis 1992) while some authors allow the use of L1 in language classes and consider the mother tongue a useful and important source (e.g. Atkinson 1993, Choděra 2006, Hendrich 1988).

The roles of L1 and L2 are analysed in the following chapters.

2.3.1 The role of L1

Certainly, L1 plays an important role in foreign language teaching and learning.

When we learn a foreign language, it is the L1 which we know and what we speak and we usually build on it to inform our knowledge of L2. So there is a clear link in the impact of L1 on foreign language learning as well as teaching. The impact of the mother tongue can be both positive or negative and it depends on teachers whether or how they use it in foreign language classes.

“The L1 can be a very valuable resource if it is used appropriately” (Atkinson 1993, 9) but it must not be overused (Atkinson 1993, 2). Atkinson also mentions that limited use of L1 can have a powerful and positive effect for learners who are frustrated or stressed.

The use of L1 can give them the opportunity to show that they are intelligent people (1993, 13–14). Even Willis holds that occasional use of L1 may be useful, although she prefers and promotes the exclusive use of L2 in lessons (1992, xiv). Hendrich (1988, 135) also states that L1 can be used because according to him it can be sometimes quick, accurate and economical. The use of mother tongue is appropriate in situations where it is more effective and advantageous than the strict adherence to the use of L2 (Choděra 2006, 123).

The use of L1 is appropriate especially for translating an expression to check if students really understand (Hendrich 1988, 135). Atkinson has similar belief:

“In particular, translation can sometimes be a good way of checking that the students have really understood a word that has been taught in the L2.” (1993, 38). But he points out

(19)

that before using translation, teachers should consider whether there is another way to check understanding. According to Willis, L1 can be used (1992, xiv) when an explanation of the meaning or use of a new word in L2 would take a long time, or when the teacher might find it quicker to explain the aims of the lesson or the activity in L1 or as a check of understanding by means of translation. Atkinson declares that sometimes it is better to use L1 for grammar explanations (1993, 12). He also thinks that the use of the mother tongue could be appropriate during lead-in, giving instructions and checking comprehension for saving time (1993, 36) and it is sometimes also useful when giving feedback (1993, 49).

Atkinson (1993, 2) states that teachers should not feel that the first language can never be used in class. The role of L1 is undoubtedly very important in English classes and teachers should be aware of it and consider carefully its appropriate use.

2.3.2 The role of L2

The role of L2 is even more important than the role of L1 because it is the subject which is taught and learnt in foreign language classes. One cannot learn the foreign language without the use of foreign language itself or just through the mother tongue.

According to Atkinson (1993, 12) “Every second spent using the L1 is a second not spent using English! – And every second counts!”. Teachers should realize that students have just few hours of English per week and therefore they should be exposed to as much English as is possible. Atkinson states that “English must be the main classroom language.” (1993, 6) and “if English is not the main language used in the classroom, the learners are not going to learn very much English.” (1993, 12).

He notes some reasons for teachers to speak mainly English during English classes:

(20)

“Listening to English is learning English.

It’s very difficult to learn English by listening to someone talking about English in French, Russian, Arabic or any other language.

It is easier for learners to see that it’s a real language.

Routine use of English helps learners adapt to ‘real’ situations outside the classroom.

They need to get used to listening to the ‘message’ of what is said, rather than trying to understand every word.” (1993, 12–13)

And finally he adds that it can be very dangerous to use too much of the first language.

If students get used to hearing nothing but English spoken during English lesson, they will very quickly develop their comprehension skills, specifically the understanding of the flow of English (Willis 1992, 1). They will learn the sound of the language, so it will be easier for them to understand the meaning and also to produce the language themselves.

Not every language has the same intonation and stress and it is essential to know the flow of English for better understanding. The teachers’ use of L2 helps the students’ receptive vocabulary growth. (Willis 1992, 7). The more frequent use of target vocabulary in the classroom, the greater understanding and ability to recollect it. Also Hughes and Moate (2007) promote the use of L2. They think that using L2 by teachers lowers students’ barrier to speaking (2007, 28). Harmer (2001, 132) claims that teachers are a principal source of comprehensible input and the time when teachers speak is important in language acquisition. He adds that this is the reason why it is important for teachers to speak English as much as possible in the class.

According to Atkinson L2 should be used in the listening stage of presentation;

usually in drills, correction, creativity stage and games (1993, 36). He also thinks that English should be usually used while dealing with problems. Hughes and Moate mention that the beginning of the lesson is a natural and motivating opportunity for teachers to help students to get used to listening to English (2007, 2).

(21)

In summary, L2 should be the predominant language in class. Students need to listen to English as much as possible in order to learn better and faster. The teacher is a source of L2 and also a role model for students.

2.3.3 Deciding on using L1 or L2

This section is focused on the appropriateness of L1 and L2 in specific situations.

The use of mother tongue and target language will be considered and discussed with regard to the categories that were defined above.

At the Beginning of the lesson it is recommendable to use L2 because the situations are nearly the same for all lessons, thus students will be able to comprehend and engage at an early point at this stage. Furthermore, it is a natural and motivating opportunity for teachers to help students get used to listening to English (Hughes and Moate 2007, 2), as was mentioned above. It is very useful for students to understand everyday greetings or phrases associated with meeting someone new. But the Beginning of the lesson phase may also include the introduction of the main topic of the lesson or explaining it. Willis suggests that L1 can be used when the teacher finds it quicker to explain the aims of the lesson (1992, xiv). Also Atkinson mentions the possibility of using L1 in the lead-in (1993, 36). However Hughes and Moate promote the exclusive use of L2 at the beginning of the lesson (2007, 2–6).

Organising includes everyday requests, commands, distributing and collecting materials and organising the class so it should be done in L2. Students will soon adopt basic phrases connected with organising. Slattery and Willis give tips for adapting various organizational phrases for English classes (2001, 14–16). Maintaining discipline falls into this category as well and as Atkinson says L2 should be usually used (1993, 81).

(22)

Presentation and practice is a rather controversial category with regard to the language used. It is difficult to say whether L1 or L2 should be used. This group of situations covers presentation, introducing a new activity, giving instructions and sequencing activities. Some authors think that L1 might be appropriate in some of these situations. Atkinson believes that mother tongue may be used during giving instructions (1993, 36) for some tasks that can be very difficult for students to understand.

This may be presentation of new structures. But he also adds: “If instructions can be given efficiently in English, then to use the L1 would simply waste an opportunity to use English in the classroom.” (1993, 48). Atkinson states that sometimes it is better to use the first language for grammar explanations (1993, 12) and as was mentioned before for lead-in L1 is also appropriate (Atkinson 1993, 36). But he prefers L2 in listening stage of presentation (1993, 36). Willis (1992, xiv) expresses the view that teachers should not waste any time in class, so she thinks that L1 can be used when an explanation of the meaning or use of a new word would take a long time in L2. By comparing opinions of Atkinson (1993) and Willis (1992) the language that is used by teachers in class depends on the difficulty of the task, word or grammar. In contrast, Hughes and Moate (2007) or Slattery and Willis (2001) provide specific phrases in English that can be used in these situations.

Imparting and seeking information includes asking questions and checking understanding. Teachers ask many questions during an English lesson. The need of as much exposure of students to English as it is possible was discussed above. Thus it is natural to suggest that teachers should use mainly English in the asking questions because it takes a lot of time in class. In academic literature some authors allow the use of L1 for checking understanding. Hendrich says that the use of L1 is appropriate especially for translating an expression to check if students really understand (1988, 135). Also Atkinson thinks that translation to L1 can sometimes be a good way of checking that

(23)

the students have really understood (1993, 38). But it does not mean that the use of mother tongue is the only possibility to check understanding. Atkinson mentions also concept questions, which he finds useful but sometimes time-consuming (1993, 30–32). Another author that recommends translation to the first language as a way of checking understanding is Willis (1992, xiv). So again, it seems that the use of L1 or L2 for checking understanding depends on the specific situation.

Giving feedback also depends on the difficulty of the language for the students.

Atkinson thinks that it is sometimes useful to use L1 when giving feedback (1993, 49).

However he points out that it is good to do it in English when possible. As for correcting students, there are many different ways to do it and the mother tongue is usually not necessary (Atkinson 1993, 33).

Ending the lesson mainly consists of situations that are repeated every lesson. So it is essential to use L2 and students will get used to it. Slattery and Willis write tips on phrases that might be used at the end of the lesson (2001, 16–17). Useful phrases can be found in Hughes and Moate as well (2007, 11–14). For setting homework Willis mentions two types of phrases depending on the level of the class (1992, 78). She shows that homework can be given in English even to students at elementary levels.

Social rituals such as apologizing, forgiving, thanking and congratulating are other situations where students can become familiar with everyday phrases. It is good to use target language and show students that these phrases are useful for everyday conversations. Examples of such phrases in English can be found in Betáková (2006, 20–

27).

(24)

The remaining situations in which the teacher speaks are difficult to define and decisively state whether L1 or L2 is appropriate because of the range of possible circumstances. However, the general rule should be to maximize the use of English.

As was mentioned before many times, the use of L1 or L2 depends on the specific situation and circumstances (e.g. level of the students) and it is not possible to use English all the time, although teachers should try to. Atkinson suggests organizing L1 problem sessions, where different problems can be sorted out, in order to avoid using the mother tongue during English classes (1993, 18–19).

2.4 Summary

The theoretical base of this thesis was presented in this section. Both L1 and L2 are very important and they both play important roles in foreign language classes.

Mother tongue can be used but it is essential to use as much English as is possible.

The decision about the use of L1 or L2 depends on teachers who should critically consider the use of the mother tongue and avoid it in situations when the target language can be applied. There are certain situations in which English should only be used in order to maximize the lessons effectiveness. For situations that repeat every lesson like greetings, taking the register, everyday requests, commands, distributing and collecting materials, and also for the dialogue when concluding a lesson; it would be pointless to use the mother tongue. On the other hand, many authors believe that L1 can be used for translating a word or an expression to check if students understand, for grammar explanations and for explaining the aims of the lesson or the activity in order to be quicker.

Appropriateness of the use of mother tongue also depends on many factors that are different for various classes and should be taken into consideration. These are for example the level of the students, their age or special needs.

(25)

This chapter was based on theoretical monographs and practical handbooks.

The following chapter presents results of selected empirical research conducted in the Czech Republic and related to the issue of the mother tongue and target language use in English lessons.

(26)

3 L1 and L2 in the light of the research in the Czech Republic

The main aim of this thesis is to determine the proportion of teachers’ use of mother tongue and target language at lower secondary school. There has been done some research on this topic in the Czech Republic. Below some of the outcomes of this research are presented and compared with the theoretical background.

Šebestová focuses on the issue of mother tongue in English classes in her dissertation thesis (2011) which was realized within CPV Video Study of English (Najvarová, Najvar 2009). The research consisted of 79 videos of teaching of 25 teachers randomly chosen in various schools in three Moravian regions. The research revealed that there were fundamental differences between the proportion of their use ofmother tongue and target language. Some teachers used mainly English while some teachers preferred mother tongue. Czech as the teaching language was used in 20 % of the teaching time on average.

Only two teachers out of 25 were teaching in mother tongue in less than 5 % of the teaching time. Five teachers used mother tongue in 5–10 % of the teaching time, another five teachers in 11–20 %, eight teachers were teaching in Czech in 21–30 % of the teaching time and five teachers in more than 30 %. Every teacher used at least some mother tongue in their lessons, no teacher taught exclusively in the target language.

On average, teachers said 1455 Czech words and 1025 English words in a single lesson.

The research was also interested in the relation between the amount of reception/production of speaking skills and the use of mother tongue in teaching.

The result was very interesting because if mother tongue was used as the teaching language, it was at the expense of production and reception, so it means that it was at the expense of teaching in the English language.

(27)

The proportion of teachers’ mother tongue and target language use, as well as the purpose of English and Czech use in the classroom is the main focus of Betáková (2000). She conducted research by means of a structured questionnaire which she gave to 50 teachers of English at Czech lower secondary schools. There were various types of teachers: fully qualified teachers, requalified former teachers of Russian, teachers with years of experience in teaching English and also some that were just beginning their careers. Before the research Betáková hypothesized that the use of English or Czech in the classroom depended on: teacher’s proficiency in English, teacher’s beliefs, the learner’s age as well as the teacher’ age. After the research, she discovered that most of the teachers thought that are totally or partially able to conduct lessons effectively in English. 10 % of the teachers assumed that they were not able to do so. Most teachers tried to use English as much as possible and one teacher (2 % of those 50) used only English. 25 % of them used English as limited, and none translated everything into Czech.

Teachers used Czech mainly for explaining grammar and complex explanations, but nearly none used Czech for giving instructions. 18 teachers used Czech for setting homework, 17 for maintaining discipline, 15 for presenting vocabulary, 13 for teaching culture, 12 for evaluating pupils and eight teachers used Czech for teaching pronunciation.

3.1 Summary

This section of the thesis described some of the research in the Czech Republic which is interested in the use of mother tongue and target language in English lessons.

Betáková (2000) and Šebestová (2011) both ascertained that teachers use mainly English in their teaching, which corresponds with the summary based on the study of literature presented above. Explaining grammar and explanations in general can be done in mother tongue when necessary according to academic literature (Atkinson 1993; Willis 1992) and

(28)

The findings of Betáková (2000) and Šebestová (2011) serve as an inspiration for the research of this thesis which is presented in the practical part below.

(29)

4 Practical part

This part of the thesis describes the process of the research focused on the teacher’s use of mother tongue and target language in lower secondary English classes. The aims and questions are stated and research procedure described. Also, a pilot study is presented whose aim was to get better and more accurate results of the research. Finally, research results are demonstrated, evaluated and discussed.

4.1 Aims and research questions

The main aim of the research is to ascertain the proportion of the selected teachers’

use of mother tongue and target language in lower secondary English classes in the Liberec region. The following research questions are formulated on the basis of the main aim of the research:

1) What is the proportion of selected lower secondary teachers’ use of L1 and L2 in their English classes?

2) In which situations does the teachers’ use of L2 prevail?

3) Do the results of data collected correspond with the theoretical propositions? If not, how?

4.2 Research procedure

The research began with the study of literature related to the main topic of the thesis.

This was presented in the theoretical part of the thesis where the summary of studied literature was introduced. There is a theoretical basis for the practical part and also for the whole thesis. The practical part is divided into several steps.

First, the research design which was decided to be used was the case study research because as Yin states “the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic

(30)

on contemporary events that cannot be controlled or manipulated (Yin 2009, 8–11). Aims and objects are defined and the procedure of analysis of the collected data and their evaluation is specified below.

The second step of the practical part is focused on choosing the right methods of data collection and creating research tools. Observation was decided to be the method for collecting data. After the preparation of research tools, piloting is conducted.

The third step is sampling. The observations of English lessons are preceded by a questionnaire which is enclosed in the appendix section of this thesis – see Appendix 1. This questionnaire is given to teachers to find out more about them and the class so that it corresponds with the criteria stated and discussed below.

The fourth step consists of observations of English classes. The aim of observations is to collect data about using L1 and L2 by means of an observation sheet and a voice recorder. This kind of data collection is qualitative. In this qualitative approach a researcher tries to become closer with studied people and understand and describe situations in which they appear (Gavora 2000, 31).

Next, the collected data are analysed and evaluated and results of the research are presented. Unlike data collection, their analysis is quantitative because the teachers’

utterances are segmented and categorized.

The last part of the research is focused on reporting and discussing the data collected that are put into the relation with theory stated in the first part of this thesis. According to Yin (2009, 15) case studies “are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes”. It means that large samples for statistical generalizations are not sought. Instead, the goal is to generalize to theories (Yin 2009, 15). This kind

(31)

of generalization is called analytic. In analytic generalization a previously developed theory is the template with which the results of the case study are compared (Yin 2009, 38).

4.2.1 Sampling

The sample size was considered on the basis of the case study, which is the design chosen for this research. The case needs to be understood and analysed in depth, so the research can be relevant and research questions can be answered (Yin 2009).

The sample size was determined by considering the amount of data collected, available time and research questions. Three teachers were chosen and two classes taught by each of them were observed; in total six observations were done, excluding piloting. Three teachers are actually three different cases in three different contexts, which fits the multiple-case design (Yin 2009, 46). Two classes taught by each teacher were also chosen so that people who are observed can get used to the voice recorder and the observer. It was important to record as authentic classes as possible.

After determining the sample size, the sample itself was chosen. As the data collection for this thesis is qualitative, the sampling strategy is also more qualitative. All three teachers were selected on the basis of availability, as well as the criteria outlined in the questionnaire. For the research focus the criterion sampling was used. Firstly, the Liberec region was chosen as the research area, as this region was available for the researcher. The next criterion of the selection required a fully qualified teacher in teaching English at lower secondary school. Furthermore it was necessary that the selected teachers had been teaching the particular class for at least five months. Three teachers from schools in Liberec and Jablonec nad Nisou, who were available and met

(32)

of the same class could be observed and taped. Two of the teachers were women and one was a man. Teacher 1 was younger and did not have as many years of experience as Teacher 2 and Teacher 3.

As for the classes observed, all of them were the sixth form, which also allows for a better comparison of the results. Teacher 1 indicated in the questionnaire that the class was comprised of 10 students. During Observation 1 nine students were present and during Observation 2 there were eight of them. In Class 2 there were 19 students indicated in the questionnaire by Teacher 2, but during both observations 14 students were present.

Teacher 3 stated that Class 3 was attended by 18 students. All 18 students were present during Observation 5 and 17 students during Observation 6. Students from minority groups did not attend these classes. All students spoke Czech as their first language, so these three selected classes were monolingual. However, there were a few students with special needs.

In Class 1 there was one student with less developed phonemic hearing and in Class 2 and 3 could be found students with dyslexia and dysgraphia; one in Class 2 and three students in Class 3. All these aspects could affect the teaching and so using L1 and L2 by the teachers. Summary of all three cases can be seen in Table 1 below, which contains data collected from the questionnaire for teachers.

(33)

Teacher 1 Teacher 2 Teacher 3

Age 25 – 30 55 – more 55 – more

Years of teaching experience (in total)

1 – 3 21 – more 21 – more

Years of teaching

experience (English) 1 – 3 16 – 20 9 – 15

Education University degree in teaching English and History at lower secondary school

University degree in teaching Czech, English and Music at lower secondary school

University degree in teaching Russian, German and English at lower secondary school

Class 6^th form 6^th form 6^th form

Months of teaching the class

15 5 5

Number of students in the class

10 19 18

Students with special needs

1 student with less developed

phonemic hearing

1 student with dyslexia and dysgraphia

3 students with dyslexia and dysgraphia Students from minority

groups

0 0 0

Table 1: Description of all three cases – data collected from the questionnaire for teachers

Teachers were contacted and data collected in February and March 2012.

The observed lessons were taped using a voice recorder. And to be able to reconstruct teachers’ speeches the observation sheet was also used. The researcher was present in all English classes observed and was filling in this observation sheet. Before the data were collected, these research tools were piloted, which is presented in the following section.

4.2.2 Piloting

The goal of piloting was to find out how the research tools work, if it is convenient for the purposes of the research and if it is possible to analyse and evaluate collected data.

(34)

Other goal of it was also to train the author as a researcher and prevent potential problems during future observations.

Piloting was realized on 8^th February 2012 and it helped to enhance data collection during observations. It was possible to reconstruct and analyse teacher’s utterances using the filled-in observation sheet and the recording. A part of the analysis of the piloting observation is included in Appendix 3, however the data collected in this stage are not taken into consideration in the final evaluation of the study. After piloting, the observation sheet was adjusted to meet research needs; the formal modifications are mentioned below in the part dealing with the observation sheet below. Also, some technical problems with the voice recorder were detected, so they could be prevented in the following observations where it was placed on the teachers’ desk to maximize its range. To be able to reconstruct the whole lesson, all teachers’ utterances spoken further away from the voice recorder were written down on the observation sheet by the researcher.

In summary, after piloting a few changes were made concerning future observations for data collection such as the adjustment of the observation sheet and the change of the placement of the voice recorder. Finally, in order to reconstruct what in entirety the teacher said, it was found necessary to note all teachers’ utterances not spoken near the voice recorder.

4.2.3 Observation sheet

As was mentioned above the observation method was used for research purpose. First, the observation sheet was created with the purpose of reconstructing lessons using it and the recording. It was piloted in order to ascertain validity and reliability of the research tool (Appendix 2). According to Gavora (2000, 71) validity is the most important characteristic of a research tool because it has the ability to ascertain things that are supposed to be

(35)

ascertained. Reliability is also very important because it means accuracy and dependability of a research tool (Gavora 2000, 73).

After piloting, the observation sheet was adjusted to the requirements of data collection and the following analysis. Originally there were too many categories in the observation sheet that were purposeless for later transcription and categorization of teachers’ utterances. This original version included Stage of the lesson, Activity, Teacher does, Teacher says, Situation, L1, L2 and Note. While the final version of the observation sheet contains only Stage of the lesson and Teacher does, to be able to categorize precisely the situation in which the teacher speaks, Teacher says, to write down some teacher’s utterances that were spoken further away from the voice recorder and Note for additional comments. The categories Situation and L1 and L2 were analysed later on the basis of the observation sheet and the recording. Therefore it was not necessary to enter them into the observation sheet during lessons and it also was not technically possible. See Appendix 2 for the final version of the observation sheet.

The main purpose of this research tool was to create a frame of the specific lesson in order to be able to recognize situations in which the teacher speaks that were categorized in the theoretical part of the thesis.

4.2.4 Data collection and analysis

Six classes taught by three teachers, who were selected on the basis of availability and data collected in a questionnaire (Appendix 1), were observed. “The presence of a visitor inevitably affects the classroom dynamics.” (Wajnryb 1992, 19). It must be considered that the presence of the voice recorder and the observer could influence behaviour of the teacher and students. In order to affect the classroom dynamics as little

(36)

and came twice to the same class, so the teacher and students observed could get used to it.

According to Dörnyei the observer who is not or minimally involved in the activities of the classroom is called a ‘nonparticipant-observer’ (2007, 179).

Next, selected lessons were taped and observed using the observation sheet and a voice recorder. The voice recorder was placed near the teacher on his or her desk.

Using the recordings and filled-in observation sheets, teachers’ utterances were transcribed in a spreadsheet programme for better analysis and evaluation of the results. The chart consists of six columns. The first one contains a number of the teacher (1, 2 or 3) and the second one a number of the observation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6). The next one is the teacher’s, utterance itself, then there is a situation in which the teacher speaks coded with numbers, from 1 to 8 based on the categorization in the theoretical part, the fifth column is language used coded as L1 or L2 where L1 is Czech and L2 is English and the last column is called Note and it is there for additional comments. In the last column debatable situations were explained and when the teacher used translation, it was entered there as well. But most importantly, when the teacher addressed students it was also written down in the Note column; these utterances were not categorized in the analysis.

This phenomenon is also considered and discussed further in this thesis.

The coding of teachers’ utterances on the basis of the categorization which was stated in the theoretical part of the thesis was usually without problems. However some situations need to be clarified. For example when the teacher repeated after students it was considered as a feedback because in general teachers should respond to students’ answers.

It sometimes happened that students asked the teacher about vocabulary. So when the teacher answered, it was categorized under number 4 – Imparting and seeking information – because he gave them some kind of information. In some situations there

(37)

was also a problem to distinguish between commands and giving instructions. As it was defined in the theoretical part of this thesis, commands fall into the category Organising, while giving instructions belongs to Presentation and practice. To be able to categorize such utterances, in the analysis of the data collected commands were considered to be more strict and they were usually connected with physical actions (e.g. “Sit down!”), whereas instructions were usually connected with mental activity (e.g. “Read it.”) and more related to the teaching and learning itself. Some examples of commands and instructions can be found in Betáková (2006). A few utterances which were coded as number 8 – Others – appeared. These were not possible to put in any of the categories and it was something that the teacher noted and what was not related to the teaching, for example: “Tak to vás tu moc teda nezbylo”. It was always said in Czech. Selected utterances and their categories can be found in Appendix 4.

4.3 Research results

Research findings, which were reached on the basis of observations and coding of recorded lessons, are presented in this part of the thesis. Results of the research project are reported and analysed and the first two research questions (What is the proportion of selected lower secondary teachers’ use of L1 and L2 in their English classes?; In which situations does the teacher’s use of L2 prevail?) are answered.

Firstly, all the utterances were counted for the entire data set and also for each teacher and then for each observed lesson. On the basis of the number of utterances spoken in L1 and L2 and also Addressing the proportion was determined. Then the percentage for each situation was counted. For clearer presentation of the results graphs and tables are used.

(38)

4.3.1 The entire data set

The entire data set is composed of six observed lessons taught by three different teachers. In total 1912 utterances that were spoken by all teachers during all observed classes were transcribed. Parts of the analysis and coding of the observations can be seen in Appendix 4. 84 of all utterances were considered a phenomenon and noted as Addressing and is discussed later on in this thesis. 349 utterances were spoken in Czech and 1479 in the English language. The number of utterances used for particular situations relating to the use of L1 or L2 are presented in Table 2 below.

Situations in which the teacher speaks

L1 L2

Beginning of the lesson 0 22

Organising 45 114

Presentation and practice 89 284

Imparting and seeking information 132 535

Giving feedback 61 495

Ending the lesson 10 24

Social rituals 2 5

Others 10 0

Total 349 1479

Table 2: The number of utterances in L1 and L2 used in specific situations (the entire data set)

As Figure 1 below shows 18 % of all the utterances were spoken in Czech and 77 % in the English language. 5 % of all utterances were considered a phenomenon Addressing.

This phenomenon was difficult to classify as L1 or L2, therefore it is entered in the pie graph as a separate category.

(39)

The results represent particular categories relating to the use of L1 and L2 and are presented in Figure 2 below. It demonstrates the percentage of L1 and L2 used in specific situations. Target language only was used by all the teachers for the category Beginning of the lesson. On the other hand for the category Others, where utterances that were not possible to classify belong, only L1 was used. It was always some kind of comment not related to the teaching.

Figure 1: The proportion of teachers’ use of L1 and L2 (the entire data set, in %)

18

77 5

L1 L2

Addressing

(40)

The summary results for the entire data set were presented in this section.

The following sections deals with the analysis of L1 and L2 use by individual teachers.

4.3.2 Teacher 1

The first part of the entire data set is composed of observations of two English lessons of the same class taught by one teacher. Teacher 1 said 616 utterances in both classes, 303 of them during Observation 1 and 313 during Observation 2. 150 of all utterances were said in Czech and 434 in the English language. The remainder (32) can be categorized as Addressing. In Observation 1 the teacher said 82 utterances in Czech and 202 in English, while in Observation 2 there were used 68 utterances in L1 and 232 in L2. In Table 3 below are presented the numbers of the utterances in L1 or L2 used for particular situations.

Figure 2: The proportion of teachers’ use of L1 and L2 in specific situations (the entire data set)

Others Social rituals Ending the lesson Giving feedback Imparting and seeking information Presentation and practice Organising Beginning of the lesson

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0

71 71

89 80 76 72

100

29 29

11 20 24 28

0

L1 L2

%

Situations in which the teacher speaks

(41)

Observation

1 and 2 Observation

1 Observation 2 Situations in which the teacher

speaks L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Beginning of the lesson 0 9 0 4 0 5

Organising 22 33 12 18 10 15

Presentation and practice 35 84 15 24 20 60

Imparting and seeking information 75 153 47 77 28 76

Giving feedback 18 149 8 76 10 73

Ending the lesson 0 4 0 2 0 2

Social rituals 0 2 0 1 0 1

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 150 434 82 202 68 232

Table 3: The number of utterances in L1 and L2 used in specific situations (Observation 1 and 2)

Mother tongue was used in 24 % of the utterances said by the teacher in both lessons, and 71 % of them were done in the target language. Addressing appeared in 5 % of the utterances. In the first lesson observed, L1 was used in 27 % of the utterances and L2 in 67 %. 6 % was defined as Addressing. The second observation of the class taught by Teacher 1 consisted of 22 % in Czech and 74 % in English. Addressing appeared in 4 % of the utterances. The proportion of L1 and L2 use is demonstrated in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: The proportion of L1 and L2 use (Teacher 1) Observation 2

Observation 1 Observation 1, 2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22 27 24

74 67 71

4 6 5

Addressing L2

L1

(42)

The specific results relating to the categories can be seen in Figure 4 below.

No utterance fitted the category Others, so that is the reason why L2 was not used there as well. It does not mean that just L1 was used. There appeared some situations in which L2 only was used: Beginning of the lesson, Ending the lesson and Social rituals.

On the other hand English was represented the least in the category Organising during both observations. Figure 4 also shows the use of L2 separately for the first and second English lesson observed.

4.3.3 Teacher 2

Another two observations were done in a different class taught by Teacher 2 and two English lessons were observed. In total 706 utterances were spoken by the teacher during both observations. Observation 3 consisted of 365 utterances and Observation 4 of 341 Figure 4: The percentage of L2 use in specific situations (Teacher 1, Observation 1 and 2)

Others Social rituals Ending the lesson Giving feedback Imparting and seeking information Presentation and practice Organising Beginning of the lesson

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

100 100 88 73

75 60

100

0

100 100 90 62

62 60

100

L2: Observation 2 L2: Observation 1

%

Situations in which the teacher speaks

(43)

utterances. L1 was used in 179 utterances in total and L2 in 510 of them. Addressing was tracked in 17 utterances. In Observation 3 Czech was spoken in 55 utterances, English in 303 and Addressing was used in seven utterances. During Observation 4 Teacher 2 said 124 utterances in the mother tongue, 207 in the target language and 10 were Addressing.

The numbers of utterances used in Observation 3 and 4 in specific situations are presented in Table 4 below.

Observation 3 and 4

Observation 3

Observation 4 Situations in which the teacher

speaks

L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Beginning of the lesson 0 4 0 2 0 2

Organising 21 32 5 21 16 11

Presentation and practice 51 74 15 48 36 26

Imparting and seeking information 51 231 12 151 39 80

Giving feedback 38 161 14 79 24 82

Ending the lesson 9 6 2 0 7 6

Social rituals 2 2 2 2 0 0

Others 7 0 5 0 2 0

Total 179 510 55 303 124 207

Table 4: The number of utterances in L1 and L2 used in specific situations (Observation 3 and 4)

In total 25 % of utterances were spoken by Teacher 2 in Czech and 72 % of them in English. Addressing carried 3 % of all utterances. Observation 3 consisted of 15 % of utterances in Czech, 83 % in the English language and the phenomenon Addressing was detected in 2 %. The percentage of utterances spoken in the mother tongue in Observation 4 is 36 %, in target language 61 % and Addressing appeared in 3 %. The teacher spoke Czech more in Observation 4 than in Observation 3. See Figure 5 below for a streamlined graph demonstrating the use of L1 and L2 by Teacher 2 in both observations.

(44)

Figure 6 represents the percentage of the use of L2 in each situation. English only was used in a category called Beginning of the lesson, but it was not used in the category Others; this was explained above. Czech was mostly used for Ending the lesson and English for Imparting an seeking information. Particular results of Observation 3 an Observation 4 are also presented. In Observation 3 the teacher used only Czech for Ending the lesson. No utterance fitted the category Social rituals, so neither L1 nor L2 was used during Observation 4. For Ending the lesson, both L1 and L2 were used, contrary to Observation 3. In observation 4, English was mostly spoken when Giving feedback and used the least for Organising.

Figure 5: The proportion of L1 and L2 use (Teacher 2) Observation 4

Observation 3 Observation 3, 4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

36 15

25

61 83

72

3 2 3

Addressing L2

L1

POUŽÍVÁNÍ MATEŘSKÉHO A CÍLOVÉHO JAZYKA UČITELEM V HODINÁCH ANGLIČTINY NA 2. STUPNI ZŠTEACHER’S USE OF MOTHER TONGUE AND TARGET LANGUAGE IN LOWER SECONDARY ENGLISH CLASSES

Technická univerzita v Liberci

FAKULTA PŘÍRODOVĚDNĚ-HUMANITNÍ A PEDAGOGICKÁ

POUŽÍVÁNÍ MATEŘSKÉHO A CÍLOVÉHO JAZYKA UČITELEM V HODINÁCH

ANGLIČTINY NA 2. STUPNI ZŠ

TEACHER’S USE OF MOTHER TONGUE AND TARGET LANGUAGE IN LOWER

SECONDARY ENGLISH CLASSES

Čestné prohlášení

Poděkování

Table of contents

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical part

3 L1 and L2 in the light of the research in the Czech Republic

4 Practical part